Skip to Content
logologo
AI Incident Database
Open TwitterOpen RSS FeedOpen FacebookOpen LinkedInOpen GitHub
Open Menu
Donate
Discover
Submit
  • Welcome to the AIID
  • Table View
  • List view
  • Entities
  • Taxonomies
  • Spatial View
  • Blog
  • AI News Digest
  • Random Incident
  • Sign Up
Collapse
Discover
Submit
  • Welcome to the AIID
  • Table View
  • List view
  • Entities
  • Taxonomies
  • Spatial View
  • Blog
  • AI News Digest
  • Random Incident
  • Sign Up
Collapse

Incident 1572: Westlaw CoCounsel Reportedly Generated False Legal Quotations in United States v. Farris

Description: In United States v. Farris, court-appointed attorney Steven N. Howe admitted using Westlaw CoCounsel to draft appellate briefs that reportedly included AI-generated false quotations and misleading descriptions of precedent. The filing disrupted Farris's appeal, leading the court to appoint new counsel and restart briefing, while Howe lost his compensation and faced possible disciplinary action.
Editor Notes: Timeline notes: The incident ID date is 10/21/2025, based on the docketed filing date of Steven N. Howe's principal appellate brief (see filing 16 here: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca6/25-5623), which the Sixth Circuit later found contained AI-generated false quotations and misleading descriptions of legal authorities. A Sixth Circuit opinion issued on 04/03/2026 documented Howe's use of Westlaw CoCounsel and the resulting procedural and professional consequences (see that here: https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/26a0105p-06.pdf). The incident ID was created on 07/06/2026.

Tools

New ReportNew ReportNew ResponseNew ResponseDiscoverDiscoverView HistoryView History

Entities

View all entities
Alleged: Thomson Reuters , Large language model developers and AI research tool developers developed an AI system deployed by Steven N. Howe , Legal professionals and Law firms, which harmed United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit , Legal clients , Judicial integrity , John C. Farris and Epistemic integrity.
Alleged implicated AI systems: Westlaw CoCounsel , AI-assisted legal research systems and Large language models

Incident Stats

Incident ID
1572
Report Count
1
Incident Date
2025-10-21
Editors
Daniel Atherton

Incident Reports

Reports Timeline

Incident Occurrence"The First Tell Was the File Name of the Principal Brief: 'Cocounsel Skill Results'"
Loading...
"The First Tell Was the File Name of the Principal Brief: 'Cocounsel Skill Results'"

"The First Tell Was the File Name of the Principal Brief: 'Cocounsel Skill Results'"

reason.com

Loading...
"The First Tell Was the File Name of the Principal Brief: 'Cocounsel Skill Results'"
reason.com · 2026

From Friday's Sixth Circuit decision in U.S. v. Farris, by Judges Eric Clay, Julia Gibbons, and Whitney Hermandorfer:

Howe [a court-appointed criminal defense lawyer appealing a drug trafficking sentence] filed two briefs---a principal bri…

Variants

A "variant" is an AI incident similar to a known case—it has the same causes, harms, and AI system. Instead of listing it separately, we group it under the first reported incident. Unlike other incidents, variants do not need to have been reported outside the AIID. Learn more from the research paper.
Seen something similar?
Previous IncidentNext Incident

Research

  • Defining an “AI Incident”
  • Defining an “AI Incident Response”
  • Database Roadmap
  • Related Work
  • Download Complete Database

Project and Community

  • About
  • Contact and Follow
  • Apps and Summaries
  • Editor’s Guide

Incidents

  • All Incidents in List Form
  • Flagged Incidents
  • Submission Queue
  • Classifications View
  • Taxonomies

2026 - AI Incident Database

  • Terms of use
  • Privacy Policy
  • Open twitterOpen githubOpen rssOpen facebookOpen linkedin
  • 18fcd27